Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7742Re: [textualcriticism] Re: p73--Byzantine, or just original?

Expand Messages
  • Dirk Jongkind
    Mar 20 1:18 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      The only people who still use these categories are those that don't like it.

      Dirk

      On 20/03/2013 20:01, jjcate wrote:
       

      Yes, and others have questioned the whole Cat system too. And the text type system (as defined by Colwell) has its critics. But there has to be some kind of way to associate MSS with important witnesses such as 03 or 05 or Byz-Maj. I think you're right that in this instance, labeling P73 can be misleading... so maybe it would've been best to leave it uncategorized. But even though it was labeled Cat 5, I don't think this indicates anything about Byz being initial or original. But maybe some day more of p73 can be found & identified and its affinities can be more clearly demonstrated. All the best,
      --Jeff

      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Buck <bucksburg@...> wrote:
      >
      > I would propose that p73's inconvenient existence shows that something is fatally wrong with the whole Category system.
      >
      >
      > Daniel Buck
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: jjcate <jjcate@...>
      > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 3:43 PM
      > Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: p73--Byzantine, or just original?
      >
      >
      >  
      > Ok, but p73 is certainly not Cat 1, 2, or 4. So the only other options are Cat 3 or 5, neither of which are good fits. Looking at how the Alands described Cat 3 on pp. 335-36 (Engl. trans.), does p73 have "significant readings from other sources not yet identified" (ala W or "Caesarean" mss)?
      >
      > I suspect (and this is speculation on my part) that the VII date is what caused them to label p73 as Cat 5, with the caveat "text too brief for certainty." In other words, being papyrus, it could be easy to falsely assume p73 was Cat 1, when it's actually late (for papyrus) and there's no indication that it is Cat 1. But categorizing a VII century MS (albeit papyrus) as Cat 5 is no indication that Cat 5/Byz should be considered default for manuscripts prior to the fifth century since the Alands never labeled any pre-V MS as Cat 5.
      >
      > Hope this is helpful,
      > --Jeff
      >
      > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Buck <bucksburg@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Category V, by definition, contains "Manuscripts with a purely or predominantly Byzantine text."
      > > A Byzantine (fka 'Antiochian') text, by definition, contains readings without any support in 'Neutral' or 'Western' manuscripts. Inasmuch as the text of p73 contains no such readings, it is not Byzantine. Call it Byzantine, and you are identifying Byzantine with the Ausgangstext.
      > >  
      > > Daniel Buck 
      > >
      > >
      > > ________________________________
      > > From: jjcate <jjcate@>
      > > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:44 PM
      > > Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: p73--Byzantine, or just original?
      > >
      > >
      > >  
      > > Just curious... why would assigning P73 to Category V be an indication that Byz was "original"? The Alands date P73 to the VII century. They date some Cat V uncials earlier than that (026, 061, 022, 023, 024, 027, 042, 043, 064, 065, 0246, 0253, 0265?)... but none before the V century.
      > > --Jeff Cate,
      > > Riverside, CA
      > >
      > > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Buck <bucksburg@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > The wikipedia article for p73 states,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_73
      > > > "The Greek text of this codex is a representative of the Byzantine text-type, but text is too brief for certainty. Aland placed it in Category V."
      > > >
      > > > The Greek text of p73 in fact consists of about ten clearly identifiable letters and another seven that appear to match what would be expected in the adjacent text of Matthew 25:43-44 and 26:2-3. 
      > > >
      > > > Although there are textual variants just on either side of these excerpts (there's an h.t. later in v. 3 that would show up if we had even one more line fragment of identifiable text), there are none in the running text that could be determined even by letter-count. So there is absolutely no evidence of any distinctly Byzantine reading in this seventh-century papyrus. 
      > > >
      > > > By assigning it to Category V, Aland was virtually admitting that the Byzantine text was original.
      > > >
      > > > Daniel Buck
      > > >
      > >
      >


      -- 
      Dirk Jongkind, PhD
      Deputy Senior Tutor, St. Edmund's College
      Research Fellow in New Testament Text and Language
      Tyndale House
      36 Selwyn Gardens
      Cambridge, CB3 9BA		Phone:(UK) 01223 566603
      United Kingdom			Fax:  (UK) 01223 566608
      
      
    • Show all 23 messages in this topic